It is useful to understand how conflict starts and is carried on.
(We'll speak here in terms of just two parties in order to
keep things simple.)

Conflict occurs when one party decides that the way things are is
not okay and seeks change, but that change is not agreed to by the
other party. It is important to realize that despite the old saying
that "it takes two to tangle", in reality it only takes one
party to declare a conflict. At that point, the other party is drawn
into the conflict whether they want to be or not, unless they
have the option to leave the relationship. In a public school
situation, neither the parent nor the school can leave, unless
the parent pulls the child from the school system entirely.

It only takes one party to initiate a conflict.

Whether a conflict remains unresolved, is resolved with good
feelings on all sides, or becomes a protracted legal dispute with
high emotional and financial cost depends primarily upon the skill
the parties have as dispute resolvers.

Our society's prevailing view of conflict is brought into sharp
focus with this definition from Webster's New World Dictionary:

Conflict

1. to fight, battle, contend

2. to be antagonistic, incompatible or contradictory, be in
opposition,clash

3. sharp disagreement or opposition as of interests, ideas, etc.

4. emotional disturbance resulting from a clash of opposing
impulses

The preceding definition makes it sound like a root canal would
be preferable to any sort of conflict. Truthfully, conflict is
stressful and unpleasant for a majority of people. One of the main
reasons this is so is that most of us are not confident of our
ability to successfully resolve disputes.

Sometimes, we may pave over the conflict with superficial
gestures or social masking. Another common strategy is blaming,
talking or complaining about the situation with friends or third
parties (while failing to talk directly to the other party we
are in disagreement with). This may give some emotional venting or
relief but rarely solves the problem, especially when our friends
agree with our view and reinforce our necessarily one-sided
perspective.

If we perceive the conflict as truly serious, we may contract
with lawyers as our hired guns to deal with our problems. We
use lawyers because the complexity of the law is so intimidating,
and also so we do not have to confront the issues or the people
involved directly. However, this third party approach has some
definite liabilities, which include a high monetary cost, a loss of
personal control over the outcome, and a winner/loser scenario that
can provide the basis for future conflict.

Despite all of its negative aspects, conflict and disagreement
between people has its good side. Conflict is actually the main
vehicle through which change takes place in our society. When we
disagree, it helps us sharpen our focus and define what the
important issues are for us. Suppression of conflict and dissent is
a sure sign that freedom is on the decline and democracy is in
trouble. Seen from this point of view, conflict is both evolutionary
and absolutely necessary.

Unless we have reached a utopian society, there will always be
conflict, as there will always be disagreement about what is fair
and best for all of us. If we accept the inevitability of conflict,
it becomes obvious that it is in our best interest to gain the
skills to be successful dispute resolvers.

It can be useful to begin to think about conflict as potentially
beneficial in the long term: normal, natural and something to
engage, not avoid. It will be easiest to make this kind of a shift
in attitude if we have good

skills to resolve conflict. We naturally tend to be attracted to
those things we do well and shy away from those we are not so good
at. Therefore, if we want to gain a more positive attitude about
conflict when it appears, we will want to expand our skills to
resolve conflict effectively.

Depending
upon the range and quality of our dispute resolution toolbox,
dealing with disagreement does not have to be disagreeable.
Successfully resolving a conflict can actually be an enjoyable and
empowering experience. Becoming more skilled in resolving disputes
and solving problems can also help us to understand the workings of
the human mind in relationships, which can lead to better
relationships overall. This is not to say that problem solving is
always fun or easy; in fact, many times it is hard work. The
rewards, however, usually are worth it.

"If you want to make quantum improvements, either as an
individual or as an organization, change your frame of reference.
Change how you see the world...change your paradigm, your scheme for
understanding and explaining certain aspects of reality."

In special education, parents and teachers often work even more
closely together than with a regular education student. A special
education child may have more difficulty than a regular education
child in fitting in, especially in today's school climate of
educational reform with the emphasis on achievement,
high-stakes tests, and certificates of mastery. With all of this
pressure to perform, it's all too easy for parents and teachers to
get stressed and fall into conflict.

When we do have a school-based conflict, it's almost always
desirable to avoid a win/lose outcome, because we are going to have
to continue to work together in the best interests of the child. The
relationship between parents and school is ongoing; it continues
long after the conflict is over. The last thing we need is for one
to feel like a winner and the other a loser.

Parent and teacher are the two centers of almost every child's
universe. No one knows their child better than the parents. No one
knows how to teach better than the teacher. It is a centered child
who finds that his/her universes are in harmony with each other. The
consistency breeds safety, which allows growth.

Lessons from geese: when
geese fly in a ëví formation as a group, each bird is lifted by
the one before it. Overall, the whole flock adds 71% in flying range
than if each bird flew alone.

The whole flock is able to fly 71% further than if each bird flew
alone.

Any conflict can give rise to feelings which may manifest as
physical or mental anxiety about a situation. At the root of these
feelings is fear. A wise teacher once said, "If you're afraid
of something, become interested in it!".

"If you are afraid of something, become interested in
it!"

Looking with "interest" at conflict, we see that the
root causes of conflicts can be broken down into fairly clear and
distinct categories. Solutions usually must take into account the
underlying type of conflict.

A preliminary step in resolving conflict is to understand what
the conflict is actually about. Having a clear picture of what the
issues are reduces the chance of a mismatch between the problem and
the solution. In this section, we identify conflicts according to
their core elements. Seven main types of conflict are discussed
below: data conflicts, relationship conflicts,
conflicts over values, conflicts regarding resources,
conflicts about past history, conflicts about structure,
and psychological conflicts.

Conflicts can be complex, and they may not always be about what
they seem. For example, a disagreement that seems to be about data
may actually have elements of relationship or values embedded within
it. It's necessary to observe carefully to determine the true
combination of elements that are involved.

Most conflicts will have one or more of these
elements as root causes. Generally, a solution to conflict
will match the cause.

DATA conflicts will have DATA SOLUTIONS

RELATIONSHIP conflicts will have RELATIONSHIP SOLUTIONS

VALUES conflicts will have VALUES-BASED solutions

RESOURCES conflicts will have solutions that address RESOURCES

conflicts generated by past HISTORY must address that HISTORY

conflicts about the underlying STRUCTURE of a situation must deal
with that STRUCTURE

PSYCHOLOGICAL elements which cause problems in resolving issues
must be dealt with creatively and must address the underlying
PSYCHOLOGICAL needs.

There are conflicts which exist primarily over data or
facts. Most data conflicts have data or factual solutions, either
through obtaining more information or through new data collection.

Example: Mother is convinced that her daughter can learn to
read on grade level and accuses the school district of failing to
provide appropriate instruction. However, two separate ability tests
given several years ago place her daughter's IQ between the 2nd
and 5th percentile, leading school personnel to believe that grade level
performance is most likely unrealistic. Mother believes, for a
number of reasons, that the test results are invalid.

Discussion: Some methods of using data to help resolve
the issue could include providing more information regarding the
relationship of IQ to reading achievement, re-doing the ability test
to meet mother's concerns about test validity, or devising a
data-driven reading instructional plan and reading assessment
strategy that everyone can agree on.

Conflicts can arise over a relationship, or over a
communication style.

Example: Father is upset because he believes that the special
education teacher is not following up sufficiently on his child. He
states that an agreement to provide weekly feedback regarding
progress has not been reliably kept. Finally, he feels that the
special education teacher is condescending and diffident in her
dealings with him, often failing to return his phone calls the same
day.

Discussion: Educational relationships can often be improved
by clearly stating needs, developing clear expectations, and writing
agreements down for the parties to follow. Many times people are
unaware of how they come across to others. "You can't change
if you aren't told what's wrong!"

Conflicts can occur over values, where the parties have
perceived or actual incompatibilities in their belief systems.

Example: Maryís teacher feels that Mary, a third grader,
gains valuable social skills and modeling when she participates in
problem-solving class meetings. Mary's mother feels that school is
a time that Mary should be learning her math facts, particularly
since she is behind. She wants Mary pulled out for individualized
math instruction during class meeting time.

Discussion: Our values help us define what is right or
wrong in any situation, and provide a moral compass for our
lives. Different values do not need to cause conflict; people can
live together in harmony with different value systems. The keys to
successful resolution are improvement and expansion of tolerance,
understanding, and acceptance of others points of view.

Example: Beth is a student who requires assistive technology
in order to communicate. Her parents feel strongly that she needs
the latest in voice-generating computer technology in order to
maximize progress on her IEP. This technology costs over $10,000.
The school district feels that Beth's IEP goals can be met by
utilizing existing technology at a much lower cost.

Discussion: A key concept useful to work with when scarce
resources are at stake is that of expanding the pie. Expanding
the pie involves brainstorming ways to use existing resources more
effectively. Perhaps the technology can be leased instead of bought;
perhaps it can be shared. The possible solutions are limited only by
the flexibility and creativity of those involved.

Conflicts occasionally result from a history of slights or
bad blood between parents and schools. Sometimes the core of
these conflicts goes clear back to when those parents were students
themselves.

Example: John, a parent, has a great deal of difficulty
communicating with the school, particularly when his child is in
trouble. He comes to meetings stiffly, with his arms folded, and
says little. Privately, he blames the school for picking on his
child. John went to this school as a child and remembers his
experience in mostly negative terms.

Discussion: In such cases, itís
most important to communicate person to person, to allow the person
carrying the history a chance to vent and tell his story, to
stay away from evoking rules as justification for decisions,

and to ultimately allow a new perspective to emerge overtime.

It's important to remember that histories weren't created
overnight and usually won't be resolved overnight. Building trust
takes time.

Conflicts can occur over how to deal with structural realities
which exist outside the immediate world of the parent/school but
which are having an impact on them.

Example: Vicki is a child with medical/emotional issues that
sometimes require her mother's attention. School is not going well
and frustration is mounting because mother must work and cannot come
to school when she is needed and when she would like to.

Discussion: It can be helpful to assist those involved with
this type of problem to appreciate the external forces and
constraints bearing upon them. Their appreciation that a conflict
has an external source can have the effect of everyone coming
together to jointly address the imposed difficulties. Structural
conflicts will often have structural solutions.

Conflicts can be caused or maintained by the psychological
needs of humans: the desire for power, control, autonomy,
recognition or love.

Discussion: These conflicts are often difficult to identify
and it is important that dispute resolvers not engage in excessive
psychoanalyzing of others. Still, there are times when these basic
human tendencies and drives will be contributing to a conflict,
often masquerading as some other, more tangible issue. Few people
are going to be able to come out and say "I'm in this
conflict with you because you're not giving me enough
recognition." Sometimes it is wisest to not deal with these
issues directly; people hate to feel as if they are being analyzed.
If you become aware of these issues, it may be useful to search for
a viable solution that will help some of these needs to actually be
met, and will thereby reduce the need to create more conflict.

If we have an understanding of how humans have been
evolutionarily programmed to respond to conflict, we are better able
to understand how this programming influences our
physiological and psychological responses of today and influences
how we deal with others to solve problems.

In times long past, conflict was likely to have life or death
consequences. Whether under attack from a marauding tribe or being
stalked by a saber-toothed tiger, our ancestors had to be constantly
ready for action in order to survive. When faced with a perceived
threat, these humans of old responded immediately and automatically
with a package of hormonal output designed to enhance
survival. At the first sign of danger, signals from the amygdala
(located deep within the emotional brain), triggered the
release of epinephrine and norepinephrine from the adrenal glands.
This immediately raised the heartrate, elevated breathing, and
diverted blood flow from the stomach and the areas near the skin
into the large muscle groups. The body was ready to do what it took
to live: fight, or if necessary, flee. Of course, there were also
times when fighting or fleeing was useless, and the best alternative
was to play dead. Playing dead at least gave the ancient one a
chance to survive.

The rapid pace of change in our society over the last few hundred
years has far outstripped the human body's natural evolutionary
change rate. As a result, we find that even as we live in today's
world, the ancient physiological survival mechanisms are alive and
well inside each of us. However, it is rare to have to confront
threats to our lives in our school buildings (although the recent
school shootings have led to a general increase in fear and
insecurity).

These days, the type of threats we usually experience in school
settings are not physical threats but psychological ones. There are
threats to our self-esteem, threats to relationships we value, and
threats to our success. Many people also experience a sense of
threat when they encounter conflict or a problem that seems
unsolvable.

From the point of view of the emotional brain, these
psychological threats are considered identical to physical threats.
At the first sign of trouble the amygdala kicks in and triggers the
same ancient packet of survival hormones and chemicals. Our cheeks
may flush, heartrate increases, palms become cold and sweaty. We
experience a classic stress response and we are ready for
action!

However,
adults today don't usually resolve conflicts in schools by
a punch in the nose (as much as we might sometimes want to!). It
also is not considered a proper response to run away down the
street, and we certainly can't play dead. Like it or not, we have
had to adapt to the civility of the workplace. The adaptations
we have made, still based on ancient responses, have led to common
styles of resolving conflict that we observe in society today.

Understanding these styles can help us see what skills and
strategies we may already have, as well as begin to think about
additional learning that can help round out our dispute resolution
toolboxes.

When faced with a conflict, people most commonly employ one or a
combination of three basic response styles. These responses have
parallels with the survival tactics of earlier humans: a fighting
response which mirrors the ancient fight response; an avoiding
response which is a variant of the flight response, and the acquiescing
response which resolves conflict by choosing to give in to the
other's demands, i.e. by playing dead. In real life, most
people tend to have one main response style but may react with any
variant of these, depending upon the situation, the timing, and
their mood.

Each of these three responses to conflict has it's appropriate
time and place, and is not necessarily good or bad.

Rather than judging a particular response, the question we might
want to ask is this: "Does what we are doing represent the best
approach we can use right now in order to most successfully solve
the problem at hand?"

Does what we are doing represent the best approach we can use
right now in order to most successfully solve the problem at hand?

A FIGHTING response is to take sides, become caught up in the
emotional energy surrounding the dispute, and perhaps get hot
under the collar. A person in FIGHTING mode identifies what they
believe is the right side in the dispute. People FIGHTING are
generally in touch with their own feelings, and the feelings of all
those on their side of the dispute. The one-sidedness of
their emotional involvement means that the FIGHTER'S ability to
clearly see the perspective of the other side is limited, since they
are convinced that their side is right. People in a FIGHTING mode
tend to see the world in black and white terms: there is a right
side and a wrong side, and they, of course, are on the right side.

A FIGHTING response may be the most appropriate when there is a
legal point which must be decided, when a crucial moral issue is at
stake, or when having a clear winner and loser will not cause
long-term damage to an ongoing relationship.

People engaging in an AVOIDING strategy protect themselves from
the difficulty of conflict by putting up a mental wall. Even though
they want to win, they are reluctant to jump into conflict the way
someone with a FIGHTING response would. A common thought pattern of
someone avoiding might go like this: "I don't want to deal
with this. Maybe if I do nothing about it it will go away".
People may also use various forms of social propriety to keep away
from conflict, i.e. "nice people don't fight".

AVOIDING means dealing with the conflict from a safe emotional
distance. As with viewing a distant mountain range, however,
specific details get lost the farther away one is. Emotional
distancing as part of avoiding may mean that there is difficulty in
empathizing, in putting on another's shoes.

A strategy of AVOIDING may be useful when it's important to
give some time and space to a conflict. In the short term, timing
can be extremely important in determining when a problem is brought
up or a conflict is discussed. People are mood driven, and a day (or
even a few hours) can make a tremendous difference in their
willingness to engage productively.

In the longer term, it is also true to say that "time heals some
wounds". A conflict may go away over time,
particularly if there is continued contact between the sides on
other issues and that contact is mostly positive and productive. At
a certain point, both parties may decide that what they were upset
about in the past is just not important anymore.

A person who is responding with a response style of ACQUIESCING
simply gives in. Faced with a fight, they drop their demands and let
the other party have what they want. A person who finds fighting
morally wrong may adopt an ACQUIESCING strategy to avoid conflict.
More commonly, however, people simply say to themselves "It's
just not worth the fight". Sometimes, however, as they later
review what they have given up, they may feel used, abused,
manipulated and angry...thereby sowing the seeds of future conflict.

Sometimes, an ACQUIESCING approach to problems results from
genuine generosity brought about by an ability to empathize with
what the other party wants. In such cases satisfaction comes from
giving to another, rather than from getting what one wants.

Sometimes, also, an action with regard to a conflict that looks
like weakness (e.g. giving in) may actually be strength.
Perhaps the person has seen the big picture and is prepared to lose
the battle in order to win the war.

a FIGHTING response engages
the other side in battle.

an AVOIDING response declines to
engage with the other side, but tries to win indirectly.

People generally resolve conflict using what skills they have
learned and are most comfortable with. Just as with parenting, many
of us have had no formal instruction, and we go on the basis of what
has been modeled for us in the past. This means that most of our
learning about how to resolve conflict has taken place through
experiencing one or more of the three common problem solving styles.

However, there are methods of resolving conflict which are
inherently different from any of the three common responses we have
discussed to this point. There are strategies available for dealing
with problems that do not involve responding with fighting, avoiding
and/or acquiescing responses. These methods, collectively referred
to as win-win orcollaborative, can hold
promise when the other responses aren't working as well as we
would like.

Though much of our focus here is on collaborative problem
solving, it's good to remember that the three common approaches
also have their time and place (and are quite widely used!).
Ultimately, in evaluating the appropriateness of any approach, we
will always want to ask ourselves the BASIC QUESTION: "Is the
approach I am using the very best I can use to resolve this conflict
or solve this problem?"

The BASIC QUESTION:

IS THIS APPROACH THE VERY BEST I CAN USE TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT
OR SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?